
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

in mil mil mil iiiii mil iiiii mil urn mi in 




IK* J \ °°y£ws ** * -.^p/ / % w 







a9 *!*> > 






• • * * «G 



^0^ 



o. 



Hi .'■"■■••-'' ''.'■ 






V s2M:. *. 



^ 









V 






^ & 






<> ' .. « *G 






, \wmr* <&' <t 







%», 



^o1 



/J *^M^JV Vj. a* 1 *• 



5>^ 



^9* 

* a v "*i 













** 



V 9 



° 



o**r»* r^ 



<*. *'T u lt» .6 



SPEECH 



HON. JAMES F. SIMMONS, 

OF EHODE ISLA1NTJD, 



THE STATE OF THE UNION. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 16, 1861. 

The Senate being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having in consideration the amendment offered by Mr. Clark to the resolutions of 
Mr. CiurrKNnEy, Mr. SIMMON'S said: 

Mr. President: I intimated yesterday, that when this question came up 
again I desired to submit a few remarks to the Senate; and I do not know 
but that it is as well to do so on the amendment as on the original propo- 
sition. I am opposed to the amendments of the Constitution proposed in 
these resolutions ; but before I proceed to point out the particular objec- 
tions to these amendments, I will try to explain what I understand to be 
the Constitution we now have. 

The Senator from Texas, (Mr. Wigfall,) the other day, in some remarks 
to (he Senate, Baid that when this Constitution was framed, by the aid of 
Connecticut, seconded by Mr. Paterson, of New Jersey, the framers of the 
instrument were prevented from making it a national system, and through 
the aid of Connecticut and New Jersey, made it a federative system. I 
do not intend to argue that question, whether 'or not, at this day, we are 
living under a Confederation or a Constitution; but I will state the propo- 
sition as made in the convention upon which he based this declaration, and 
I ask my friend and colleague — as he can see better than I can, and also 
read a great deal better — to read this debate. There are several pages of 
it. I think it explains more clearly than I could what the fathers intended 
this instrument to be. The proposition was this: Mr. Ellsworth moved 
that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification ; Mr. 
Paterson seconded the motion ; and here is the debate upon it, which I 
shall make a part of my speech. 

Mr. A.\ in on y read, as follows: 

"Mr. Ellsworth moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for 
ratification. 

" Mr. Patebson seconded the motion. 

"Colonel Mason considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people 
as one of the most important and essential of the resolutions. The Legislatures 
have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State constitutions, 
and cannot be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of 



E4W 



- 



"S^rr 



their constitutions— be knew there was no power in some of theni — that could be 
competent to this object. Whither, then, must we resort? To the people with 
whom all power remains that has not been given up in tbe constitutions derived 
from them. It was of great moment, he observed, that" this doctrine should be 
eherished, as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was, that, ad- 
mitting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer 
the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures, having equal authority, could 
undo the acts of their predecessors; and the national Government would stand, in 
each State, on the weak and tottering foundation of an act of Assembly. There 
was a remaining consideration of some weight. In some of the Slates the govern- 
ments were not derived from the clear and undisputed authority of the people. 
This was the onec in Virginia. Some of the best and wi&est citizens considered the 
constitution as established by an assumed authority. A national constitution de- 
rived from such a source would be exposed to the severest criticisms. 

"Mr. Randolph. One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, to wit: that oppo- 
sition, as well from the States as from individuals, will be made to the system to be 
proposed. Will it not then be highly imprudent to furnish any unnecessary pretext 
by the mode of ratifying it? Added'to other objections against a ratification by the 
legislative authority only, it may be remarked that there have been instances in 
which the authority of the common law has been set up in particular States against 
that of the Confederation, which has had no higher sanction than legislative ratifi- 
cation. Whose opposition will be most likely to be excited against the system? 
That of the local demagogues who will be degraded by it from the importance they 
now hold. These will spare no efforts to impede that progress in the popular mind 
which will be necessary to the adoption of the plan, and which every member will 
find to have taken place in his own, if he will compare his present opinions with 
those he brought with him into the convention. It is of great importance, there- 
fore, that the consideration of this subject should be transferred from the Legisla- 
tures, where this class of men have their full influence, to a field in which their 
efforts can be less mischievous. It is, moreover, worthy of consideration, that some 
.of the States are averse to any change in their constitutions, and will not take the 
requisite steps unless expressly called upon, to refer the question to the people. 

"Mr. Gerry. The arguments of Colonel Mason and Mr. Randolph prove too 
much. They prove an unconstitutionality in the present Federal system, and even 
in some of the State governments. Inferences drawn from such a source must be 
inadmissible. Both the State governments and the Federal Government have been 
too long acquiesced in to be now shaken. He considered the Confederation to be 
paramount to any State constitution. The last article of it, authorizing alterations, 
must consequently be so as well as the others; and everything done in pursuance 
of the article must have the same high authority with the article. Great confusion, 
he was confident, would result from a recurrence to the people. They would never 
agree on anything. He could not see any ground to suppose that the people will do 
what their rulers will not. The rulers will either conform to or iufluence the sense 
of the people. 

"Mr. Goruam was against referring the plan to the Legislatures. 1. Men chosen 
by the people for the particular purpose will discuss the subject more candidly than 
members of the Leglislature, who are to lose the power which is to be given up to 
the General Government. 2. Some of the Legislatures are composed of several 
branches. It will consequently be more difficult, in these cases, to get the plan 
through the Legislature than through a convention. 3. In the Slates many of tha 
ablestmen are excluded from the Legislatures, but may be elected into a conven- 
tion. Among these may be ranked many of the clergy, who are generally friends 
to ffood government. Their services were found to be valuable in I he formation and 
establishment of the constitution of Massachusetts. 4. The Legislatures will bein- 
terrupted with a variety of little business; by artfully pressing which, designing 
men will find means to delay from year to year, if not to frustrate altogether, the 
national system. 5. If the last article of the Confederation is to be pursued, the 
unanimous concurrence of the States will be necessary. But will any one say that 
all the States are to suffer themselves to be ruined, if Rhode Island should persist in 
her opposition to general measures? Some other States might also tread in her 
steps The present advantage, which New York seems to be so much attached to, of 
taxing her neighbors by the regulation of her trade, makes it very probable that she 
will be of the number. It would therefore deserve serious consideration, whether 
provision ought not to be made for giving effect to the system without waiting for 
the unanimous concurrence of the States. 



"Mr. Ellsworth. If there be any Legislatures who should find themselves in- 
competent to the ratification, he should be content to let them advise with their 
constituents, and pursue such a mode as would be competent. He thought more 
was to be expected from the Legislatures than the people. The prevailing wish of 
the people in the eastern States is, to get rid of the public debt; and the idea of 
strengthening the National Government carries with it that of strengthening the 

Iiublic debt. It was said by Colonel Mason, in the first place, that the Legislature? 
lave no authority in this case ; and in the second, that their successors, having equal 
authority, could rescind their acts. As to the second point, he could not admit it 
to be well founded. An act to which the States, by their Legislatures, make them- 
selves parties, becomes a compact from which no one of the parties can recede of 
itself. As to the first point, he observed that a new set of ideas seem to have crept 
in since the Articles of Confederation were established. Conventions of the people, 
or with power derived expressly from the people, were not then thought of. The 
; i Hires were considered as competent. Their ratification has been acquiesced 

in without complaint. To whom have Congress applied on subsequent occasions for 
furtlu ■!■ To the Legislatures, not to the people. The fact is, that we exist 

at present, and we need not inquire how, as a Federal society, united by a charter, 
on<- article of which is, that alterations therein may be made by the legislative au- 
thority of the States. It has been said that, if the Confederation is to be observed, 
the States must unanimously concur in the proposed innovations. He would ajjswer 
that, if 6uch were the urgency and necessity of our situation as to warrant V new 
compact among a part of "the States, founded on the consent of the people, the same 
pleas would be equally valid in favor of a partial compact, founded on the consent 
of the Legislatures, 

" Mr. V\ 11 it lmson thought the resolution (the nineteenth) so expressed as that it 
iherto the Legislatures or to conventions recommended by 
the Legislaturea He observed that some Legislatures were evidently unauthorized 
to ratify the Bystem. He thought, too, that conventions were to be preferred, as 
likely to be i of the ablest men in the States. 

" Mr. Gouverneur Morris considered the inference of Mr. Ellsworth from the plea 
I to the establishment of a new system on the consent of the 
if the States, in favor of a like establishment on the consent of a 
the Legislatures as a non sequitur. If the Confederation is to be pursued, 
no alteration can be made without the unanimous consent of the Legislatures. Leg- 
islative alteratioi rmable to the Federal compact, would clearly not be 
valid. The judges would consider them as null and void. Whereas, in case of an 
appeal to the people of the LTnited Mates, the supreme authority, the Federal com- 
pact may be j a majority of them, in like maimer as the Constitution of a 
particular State may be altered by a majority of the people of the State. The 
amendment moved by Mr. Ellsworth erroneously supposes that we are proceeding 
on the basis of the Confederation. This convention is unknown to the Confedera- 
tion. 

"Mr. Bursa thought with Mr. Ellsworth, that the Legislatures had a eompetent 
authoi -etice of the people of America in the Confederation being 

equivalent to a formal ratific ition by the people. He thought with Mr. Ellsworth, 
rial the plea of necessity was as valid in the one case as in the other. At the 
same time he preferred a reference to the authority of the people, especially dele- 
gated to con\ entione, as the most certain means of obviating all disputes and doubts 
ning the legitimacy of the new Constitution, as well as the most likely means 
of drawing forth the best men in the States to decide on it. He remarked that, 
among other objections made in the State of New York to granting powers to Con- 

mr< - bad b sen that such powers as would operate within the States could not 

be reconciled to the Constitution, and therefore were not gran table by the legislative 
authority. He considered it as of some consequence, also, to get rid of the scruples 
which Borne members of the State Legislatures might derive from their oaths to sup- 
port and maintain the existing constitutions. 

" Mr. M voiron thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the pro- 
posed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State constitu- 
tions ; and it would be a novel and dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could 
change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might, indeed, be 
some constitutions within the Union which had given a power to the Legislature to 
concur in alterations of the Federal compact. But there were certainly some which 
had not ; and, in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the 
people. lie considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures 



only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or 
treaty and a constitution. The former, in point of moral obligation, might be asinyio- 
lable as the latter; in point of political operation, there were two important distinc- 
tions in favor of the latter; first, a Law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law 
might be respected by the judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A 
law violating a Constitution established by the people themselves would be consid- 
ered by the judges as null and void. Secondly, the doctrine laid down by the law 
of nations in the ease of treaties is, that a breach of any one article by any of the 
parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of 
people under one constitution, the nature of the fact has always been understood to 
exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two. modes, in point of expediency, 
he thought all the considerations which recommended this convention in preference 
to Congress, for proposing the reform, were in favor of State conventions in prefer- 
ence to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it. 

"On the question, on Mr. Ellsworth's motion, to refer the plan to the Legislatures 
of the States — 

1 Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland — aye, 3. 




Caroli 
federal 

':,;,!, 355, 356. 

Mr. Simmons. Mr. President, that explains what the framers of this 
Government intended it should be; and yet men will refer to that very- 
question there decided — seven against it, and three for it — and say that 
that decision was in favor of making a confederation, instead of a national 
Government ; and every argument that has been made on the opposite side 
of the Chamber has treated this Constitution as if it were a league or treaty. 
A compact broken in one part is broken in all parts, said Mr. Webster. I 
agree with that; but did lie ever say this Constitution was a compact? 
Never ; never ; on the contrary, he expressly denied it. Quotations are 
made from eminent men, who make speeches either to get votes or to get 
nominations, and are adduced here as constitutional authority. I read 
this very debate and another here fourteen years ago, in the presence of the 
Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Mason.) I read what that gentleman's dis- 
tinguished ancestor said on this constitutional question. I read it, too, 
upon another portion of this subject that I shall call his attention to. 
Every Senator who has made an argument upon this question in favor of 
the right of a State to secede, has based it upon the argument, and solely 
upon the argument, that the Constitution is a treaty, and not a Constitu- 
tion. I agree that a treaty which is broken in one part is broken in all, 
and frees everybody. That was Mr. Madison's doctrine; but he said that 
a constitution formed by the people is not a compact, but a pact that ex- 
cludes such an interpretation. Yet, everybody on the other side says it is 
a compact; and the distinguished Senator from Texas says that the old 
men who made this Constitution, of all things in the world, knew nothing 
about it; that they were very good men for generals, and such like, but 
knew nothing about the Constitution. Well, sir, they are good enough 
authority forme. I would rather read their authority than any other. I 
make no argument upon it. 

I call the attention of the Senator from Virginia to what he said this 
morning about referring these resolutions to the people. He said he was 
against letting the people vote on them. His distinguished ancestor said 
he held it of the first importance, that this Government should rest on the 
will of the people; but it has got to be unfashionable now; the people are 
not to be trusted in this age. I have as abiding faith in them now as the 
fathers had when they made this Constitution; and how did they come 



out? Look at your seventy years' experience under this Constitution. 
Did they trust the people in vain ? I hope not , I know they did not It 
Was i the faith of the fathers. Let us live by it, and stand bv it. But I 
shall be tedious if T go into that debate; and therefore dismiss it. 

Mr. Mason. Will the Senator allow me to interpose a word? 

Mr. Simmoxs. Certainly. 

Mr. Mason. What I said implied no distrust of the people whatever. 5 
What I said referred entirely to the theory of this Government. This 
anient, as [ understand, is a confederation of States; and when the 
I !Ci "I ken o f in the Constitution, it means the people of each State 

separdtim, as a separate independent political community, each State being 
Sov ^'" - '• Now, ! understand the scope of this resolution is to refer a 
quesl nstitutional amendment, not to the States or to the people of 

1| "' States, as separate independent political communities, but to refer it to 
l,H * ! ites as a genetal mass. I say that the Constitution 

never contemplated that the people of the United States, as a mass, a 
1 " ,:: ' <naes, should be the parties to the Federal Government; and 

tl "" i " ; '-- rithoul any distrust of the people in their separata States, I 
never ran agree to convert the form of government we now have, from a 
confederation of Republics into a consolidated Government. And, inter- 
rupting th e Senator for a moment longer, I would refer to the fact, that 
when the Constitution contemplates amendments to be made to it, they 
are amendments to be made to it by the States, as States, either by 'their 
Leg slaturea or by conventions, as may be arranged; but in each instance 
tbJe amendments are to be mad- by States, and those amendments would 
not be carried by a popular vote, but each State would give one single vote 
and one only upon the amendments. The State which the honorable Sen- 
ator ■■■ . with its population, would gjye a vote equal to the State 
ented by the Senator from X. w York — a single vote. There was no 
idea of refi iring il broai oast to the people, as a consolidated mass. That 
is all I wish to 

Mr. i I did understand the Senator to make the objection. If 

f .li'.iions aright, these amendments are to be adopted if they 

are approved of by the people of three-fourths of the States, each State 
vote. That is the way I read them. One of them, I am pretty 
sure, Bays so. I read it yesterday. I agree that the Senator is right in 
saying that the nts are to be referred to the people of the States, 

and lhal the original proposition was made to the people of the States; 
and w hy .' Because this Constitution took from the State authorities many 
of the powers thai the people had given to their State Legislatures; and 
they were hot going to have a mass meeting, and let thepeople of Vir- 
ginia take away the rights that had been given by the people of South 
Carolina to their State Legislature. It must be the same constituent body 
thai granted these rights to their State government, that should take them 
bark again and grant them to this Government. That is the distinction. 
Nobody was competent to take away the rights of the Legislature of Rhode 
bland bul the people of Rhode Island, and so it is with all the rest of the 
States. That is the reason, and the only reason, that this Constitution was 
Bent to the people of the States; not because it was a confederation, as the 
Senator reiterates again to-day, but, because powers were given in the Con- 
stitution to the national Government that could not be taken from the 
States by anybody but those who gave those powers to the State Legisla- 



6 

tuxes ; and they took those powers from the States in ratifying this Consti- 
tution, and gave them to the national Government. I have no doubt the 
Senator from Kentucky, in his resolutions, has provided the same mode 
that is pointed out in the Constitution, to let the people vote in each State 
for or against these amendments. Am I mistaken in that? 

Mr. Crittenden. The resolutions which I offered provided no means 

that sort; but the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bigler) Las been 

so good as to introduce a bill here prescribing the mode in which the vote 

snail be taken, as it was taken at the presidential election, and by the same 

officers. 

Mr. Simmons. I have seen it somewhere in the printed proceedings. 
That would certainly be the way. There is no other way to do it under 
the Constitution. Every suggestion, every argument made use of by every 
man who spoke in this debate in the Convention as to whether the Consti- 
tution should be ratified by the Legislatures or by the people, no matter 
whether they were in favor of a Confederation or in favor of a national 
Government, furnishes a complete auswer to all the arguments that have 
been brought up here in favor of the right of a State to secede. Mr. Ells- 
worth, as much of a Federalist as he was, denied that right even under 
the confederation and every national man from that time down has always 
denied it. 

Mr. President, having disposed of that question, so far as I choose to 
speak on it in this connection, I come to the provisions for its amendment; 
and I have to say to my worthy and distinguished friend from Kentucky 
that I consider his plan grossly violative of the Constitution itself. He 
knows that I speak of it kindly; but I cannot in my conscience believe 
otherwise than I have stated. I know these troubles. I feel as much re- 
gret as I know he feels at sych unwarrantable troubles brought. upon us 
from so trifling causes, as I 'conceive; but I cannot vote for these resolu- 
tions, because I think they violate the very spirit of the instrument under 
which we sit here. Here is a proposition to add five new sections to the 
Constitution, and to make them and two clauses of the present Consti- 
tution irrepealable and unalterable. I ask the Senator if he has thought 
enough, to be certain, that these propositions are sound enough to 
make' them, like the laws of the Medes aud Persiaus, unalterable, in a free 
Government? I have read them over but twice. I know they would be 
wholly impracticable in Rhode Island. We have in Rhode Island no 
county organization that you can sue to recover the value of a slave. 
You must have somebody to sue. You must have an organization. I 
have not read them with a view to criticise, but I am speaking of them 
generally. Here is an instrument founded by our fathers. Our Constitu- 
tion has been in operation three-quarters of a century, and the country 
has flourished uuder it as no other country has ever before done under 
heaven. There is in that instrument but one single clause irrepealable, 
and that is the clause which gives the State of Rhode Island as many 
Senators as the State of Kentucky. That you cannot repeal without 
unanimous consent, aud that is the only one that now remains. There 
was another in reference to the importation of slaves, but that has become 
obsolete. 

I will put a case to the Senator from Kentucky. Suppose that he and my- 
self and eleven others had formed a partnership, and had pa' 1 in $1000 
each for raising water-rotted hemp in Kentucky, aud had j ut into our 



agreement that any one who would pay in $1000 could join us, upon an 
equal footing with the original partners, and that the business might be 
changed, by the votes of three-fourths of the partners. This would be 
fair. Well, we went on, took in partners, and raised hemp, and divided 
twelve per cent, per annum. That would be a fair business — not so pros- 
perous as this country has been, but it would be remunerative. Suppose 
we admitted new partners until we had thirty-nine, beside the original 
thirteen, a constitutional majority, and they conclude among themselves at 
a meeting in Wall street, (for if it paid twelve per cent, it would be from 
there these new partners would come, and not from among farmers, as we 
are,) and determining by their thirty-nine votes against our thirteen, to quit 
hemp-raising and go into slave-trading. We should remonstrate, and say, 
" That is an illegal business;" it is profitable to be sure, but illegal — and 
you have no right to mate our concern an illegal one. They would an- 
swer, "it was legal when the partnership was formed — you old fogies 
have altered the laws since, and not we — it was lawful business when the 
contract was drawn — we persist in it." We should look over the contract, 
and find it so, and though opposite to what we expected to be done, we 
should be obliged to submit. We are law-abiding men, and believe in the 
validity of contracts. Hut suppose that after getting us into the slave- 
trade, they should make another provision in the contract itself, that the 
business Bhould be continued, unless unanimously voted otherwise, and 
that we musl carry on this piratical trade as long as there was a thief or 
a liar in the coi cern. What would he say to that? We would not agree 
to it I know. He would say, "That is carrying things too far." 

I lition here. We are asked to alter this Constitu- 

tion from what the fathers made it. We must alter the mode of its amend- 
ment, and put in seven new clauses that can never be repealed, no matter 
what public sentiment may be, without a unanimous vote; so that one 
single State, it' we have forty, can prevent the repeal of any one of them. 
I know, when \ address myself as I do.to the honorable Senator. from Ken-- 
tucky, that he would not vote for that proposition himself under any cir- 
ina inci . He would contrive some other method to heal these troubles.; 
and 1 would go with l.im with all my heart; but do not let us tear up this 
old instrumenl under which we have prospered, which he glories in as much 
as I do. 1 do not want to make a speech about it ; but 1 know when I love 
untry and its Constitution. No man can make me believe that I do 
not venerate that instrument; that I do not venerate the Union that it 
formed. I am under no apprehension whatever that there is a man who 
hears me that doubts my regard for every one of these States in the Union, 
and their institutions. I love Kentucky. I love South Carolina. I lived 
among them more than fifty years ago. I have partaken of their hospi- 
talities. I have walked to the same churches with them, and knelt at the 
same altar; and a more hospitable people never lived. But as much as I 
love them, [ say their present conduct is utterly unworthy of them; and 
the Senator from Kentucky must know that as well as I do. Because they 
want to cut up capers, are we going to tear up that instrument to appease 
them I Not we. Let them have a little bit of a frolic, if they want to. 
I do not want to whip them. That is not my notion. I do not want to 
hurt them. 

1 love Georgia, 1 lived with them fifty years ago. I have been out 
there on patrol in the night to watch. They were frightened about insur- 
rection. There is always danger, they think. I never was afraid there in 



my life. The only place where I ever saw any of this negro equality, as 
it is called, was in Georgia. A man kept a hotel in what was formerly the 
seat of government. It was a tavern, a very large one, kept by a French- 
man of the name of Posener. He invited me one day to go up and see 
his wife. I was a boy at the time. I went up, and found she was a great, 
burly negress. (Laughter.) I have nothing to say about her. That was 
the only time I ever saw that, and I was disgusted with it. I never saw it 
in New England in my life, much as the talk is about negro equality there. 
These Georgia people can stand their own troubles very well ; but when 
there are any troubles down in Massachusetts, they get in a violent passion. 
They will have it that there is amalgamation and negro equality there; but 
I do not want to say anything about it. I dislike it, to be sure ; but it is 
not best to make a noise about it. 

The Republican party cannot insert a portion of the Declaration of In- 
dependence into its platform, but it is said that we mean the social equality 
of the negroes. I wonder if Jefferson meant that when he wrote it. These 
old men that signed it did not think any such thing. It is "young America" 
that has brought their doctrine into disrepute. Our distinguished Vice 
President, in a speech last year, read an old resolution of the Republican 
party of 1856, in which the word "equality" was not in. It was left out 
for some reason or other. It was copied from that old-fashioned Declara- 
tion ; and he said that a careful scrutiny of it would show it meant negro 
equality. There was not a word about equality in it. I do not know where 
he got it; but I suppose all that was there was copied from Jefferson. We 
cannot make a platform but what a diseased imagination can torture it into 
anything, especially in these times. I have been to these national conven- 
tions ever since I can remember — not always as a delegate. The first one 
I went to, as a delegate, Rhode Island had the honor of voting for the 
author of these resolutions for Vice President of the United States; and if 
the rest had been as wise as we were, we should have had power to this 
day, in my deliberate judgment, taking what providentially happened ; but 
we caught a Tartar. 

I have never voted for a President in my life, and I have voted for forty 
years or more, when I did not prefer a man born in a slave State. In all 
the conventions I have been a member of, we have selected for President 
a man born in a slave State; and whenever there has been anybody up for 
President, and there were electors running in my State for a man born in 
a slave State, I voted for him without caring where he was born. I was 
for Mr. Clay in 1824; although Mr. Adams was a good man and gave us 
one of the best administrations I ever knew. I never had but one idol, and 
I never mean to have another in the shape of a man. It is almost as bad 
as to set up cotton for king. 

I mean to treat this subject with all the gravity that its dimensions de- 
mand. I kuow it is one of the most difficult questions. I have thought 
of it, and looked into the fire more than a hundred hours since I have been 
here, not saying a word, to try if I could see the way out peaceably; and 
I am just as young as my youngest boy about it. Nobody has any expe- 
rience in such questions as this; for nobody ever dreamt that mankind 
would have such folly as is now exhibited. What are they quarreling about? 
Literally nothing. This Government has been in their hands, as was said 
by the Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Wade,) for the last eight years. Practi- 
cally, the South have had this Government for sixty years out of seventy- 
two; and they talk about sectionalism, and some of the remedies to get 



rid of a sectional party are, to make a sectional constitution, run a line 
through, and give half the territory and offices to the side that has but one 
third of the people. A double portion is, with them, equality. The Sen- 
ator from Virginia (Mr. Hunter) wants a sort of double Executive— after 
the Siamese pattern — a first king and a second king. (Laughter.) lie 
wants to eject them both, and let both have a veto. We have been pestered 
enough with vetoes since I have been here ; and I would rather take the 
veto away from the one man than give it to two. You cannot get along 
with this Government, it seems, unless you let the minority rule some way 
or other. That is the question now. The minority want to rule, and they 
are afraid of the people — literally so. 

I jvish I could see a proposition that I could hear somebody who was 
disaffected say would satisfy him. I have not heard one of them say so. 
The Senator from Texas said if we would do about forty things that he 
kuew we would not do, he would then consider. That is the nearest ap- 
proach to a settlement that I have heard. (Laughter.) If we would stop 
the pulpits, burn the school-houses, suppress the newspapers, imprison the 
Abolitionists, and break up this Government, he would think about stay- 
ing in. (Laughter.) He would take it into consideration; he would not 
fledge him-!'; he said. Oh, no! (Laughter.) Well, now, I like the 
Senator In. in Texas. I like him on account of his "better half." (Laugh- 
ter.) She was from Rhode Island ; and he will take anything I say kindly 
on that account. 

Mr. President, it is a great question. These people who have seceded 
will find ;i bigger sum than they ever ciphered out before. I want to see 
how they will cipher it out before we move. Let those people that are 
afraid take care. I am not afraid. If I were, I should take care. I would 
do anything in reason to remove this dissatisfaction. I feel sad when I 
thiuk of it. But I wish somebody that is troubled, and wants it relieved, 
would suggest how we can relieve it. Kentucky is as loyal a State as ever 
was in the Union. They want something, I know. The people have been 
aroused by this election, as is natural. All presidential elections excite a 
great dea] of feeling; and for that reason it is the worst time in the world 
to try to amend the Constitution. They have talked it so long that they 
begin to believe it. themselves, that the Republican party means to en- 
danger their institutions. 1 said here four years ago, that if I found my- 
D a party that undertook to disturb the institutions of the South, I 
would quit it immediately. So I will. I have been in it now four years, 
and have ye! to see or hear the first man in it propose any such thing. 
Nothing could induce me to remain in a party that I thought meant to 
break I he Constitution. 

As to the President elect, he is from Kentucky. All his social ties are 
with Kentucky. As has been well remarked by a Senator, he has not only 
said what he would do, but he has said what he would not do; and I do 
not believe there can be two inferences about that. Some candidates only 
say what they will do ; but Mr. Lincoln has not left you to infer what he 
will not do. He has told you himself what he will not do. That is the 
man we have elected; and you can find in his record that he will not dis- 
turb slavery anywhere. He is against any such thing; and if he were not, 
he has family connections, social ties, and kindred, that would prevent him. 
These are higher guarantees than parchment. I would rather have the fer- 
vent, effectual prayer of a righteous man for this Union, than all you can 
write on parchment to save it. 



10 

I thought when I got up {hat T would keep my voice from rising, because 
when men's voices rise, sometimes their feelings get the better of them. I 
thought I would talk as if I was talking to my brothers, making not argu- 
ments but suggestions. No man felt more deeply impressed with the- 
beautiful effort of the Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) than I did. 
It came from the light quarter to give peace. But the very next speech 
that was made after it, was the bitterest I have heard in the Senate. That 
was the response. I say this with the utmost kindness to my friend from 
Missouri, (Mr. Polk,) who made that speech. It was very bitter. The 
effort of the Senator from New York did not seem to have appeased him 
at all. I think the Senator from New York went a great way. Why, Mr. 
President, it is something for a party in the majority to agree to conciliate 
in the present aspect of "this country. I will do anything that I can do 
that will not demoralize the Government. I am afraid of that — absolutely 
afraid of it. I am afraid to do anything that will bring reproach upon the 
Government I love. The Senator from New York said, that to threats he 
would offer conciliation. That I would do. He said that to exactions he 
would grant concessions. That I am not quite certain I would do. He 
s iid that to hostile array he would give the right hand of brotherhood. 
That is good. I have faith that the millennium will come; but I do not 
think it is here now. That would be good doctrine then. But, sir, the' 
millennium has not come. I know the reading of scripture, but I suppose 
it was wrongly rendered. I could never interpret the scripture there where 
it said that that generation should see it; but I suppose the translators 
rendered it wrongly ; they did not quite understand the original tongue. 
But, sir, the millennium did not come while Judas Iscariot lived, nor will 
it come while others like him fester and pester the society in which they 
live, shame their country, and dishonor their race. It will not come while 
such men are here. They will be disposed of before that time comes. 

The Senator from Kentucky believes with me in that respect. I shall 
not utter a sentiment that he will not agree with. If I do, I will take it 
back immediately. He and I have lived too long together for me to say 
anything disrespectful to him. I never had any uneasiness in reference to 
him but about one thing, and that was about my children. I was not 
afraid that they would love him any better than I did ; but I was afraid 
they would love him better than they did me, (laughter,) and that is the 
case with all Rhode Island. There is no Prince of Wales or his mother, 
or any other crowned head of Europe, that Rhode Islanders would travel 
so far to see as the Senator from Kentucky. And so it has been for the 
last quarter of a century. 

I have now said all that I intend to say about making the proposed 
amendment perpetual. I hope the Senator from Kentucky will run out in 
his own mind the idea that I give him about that, and will feel just as I do 
in regard to it. The series of resolutions introduced by Edmund Randolph 
into the convention, declared that there ought to be a Government which 
could be changed by a majority less than the whole. That was one of the 
cardinal principles laid down when this Government was formed. Now, it 
is proposed to make this proposition so that it cannot be changed. The 
Senator from Kentucky loves the Constitution as well as I do. He was 
brought up under its teachings. He has illustrated it in every speech he 
has made, and his whole life has illustrated it. Guarantees to slavery are 
proposed as if the Republican party intended to invade the rights of slave- 
holders. Why, sir, they would not have a corporal's guard with them in 



11 

either House of Congress if they attempted it. It would not be as large as 
the Tyler party, and that consisted of but five. 

I made some memoranda when Senators were speaking, for I thought I 
would answer some of their arguments in detail; but I never did write a 
sheet of paper over with notes but. it bothered me, for I never can read 
them. I am sorry it has got to be the fashion to take them at all except 
by the reporters. Sir, [ want the Senator from Kentucky to turn his mind 
and Ins en some method of composing these difficulties that shall 

G ivernment. lam willing to say that any interference 
lavery in the States by the General Government is not among the 
powers granted to Congress, and ought not to be granted or exercised for 
all time. I do not believe the General Government has any such power. 
I never did believe it; and if you want to make it any clearer I would put 
that in. The powers of this Government are as distinct and as independ- 
ent as if there were no States. The powers delegated to the National Gov- 
ernment are to be exercised as if there were no States. On the other hand, 
the powers that are retained by the States, and the people of the States, 
are as independent of those as if there was no National Government. That 
is my d > >trin •. 1 am a State-rights man as well as a national man ; and 
the powers are clearly defined — defined in the book and defined by the 
practical experience of seventy years. I should like to see a man bold 
Bay that, under the authority of the Constitution, the General 
ted could interfere with slavery in the States in any 
way, directly or indirectly. I believe in no such doctrine, and I do not 
believe thi body who holds it; at least I have never seen him, nor 

■ a public man in the United States big enough to ob- 
tain a vote foi I' ssident that would ever think of it, of whatever party he 
ma y be. We !■ \ • nothing to do with protecting it or disturbing it in the 
States; but in r< gard to the Territories, I do not agree with the new-fash- 
! notion. I believe we have a right to do either in the Territories. 
\\\. h ive a right to govern the Territ ries as we please. I do not agree in 
thai this Government ia a trustee of the States for the Territories. 
I never heard of such a doctrine until lately. 

The Senator from Oregon (Mr. Lane) says that he is for having the 
equal States in this league. Why, sir, they had an alli- 

—1 think it was the treaty of Vienna— where the 
Q ve g r( a ) p w( jether to take care of the rest of the world, and 

formed what w "The Holy Alliance;" and I believe it is in being 

.,,,! that thi re was a talk of calling them together to take care of Italy. 
Thai ft] i ince consisted of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. 
[f e i tn .... Powers, during the last forty-five years, had discovered a 

new to y »u suppose it would give up its own title to it, and say 

it held it for the alliance? If a treaty of alliance for boundaries and the 
balance of power in Europe, had defined stipulated powers, anything they 
did they would do in common as we do; but is there any power here to 
• r: it. i v .' That is not one of the express powers granted in the 
Constitution and on the theory of all these secessionists, when a ship of 
John Jacob A overed the mouth of the Columbia river, and took 

possession of it, that territory would belong U the State of New York. 
The Constitution gives this Government no power to acquire territory. 
Why is not that territory New York's? The power that discovers a coun- 
tiv by taking possession of the mouth of a river, takes all the slopes that 
run into it. That is the doctrine. Upon this idea, it would belong to 



12 

New York, manifestly ; but it is a power incident to the national sover- 
eignty ; and so the sailor himself understood it, and he hoisted the stars 
and stripes there, instead of the flag of New York. What right have any 
of these other States to control slavery in that territory by virtue of our 
being trustees for the States? It is moonshine, utter moonshine. The ter- 
ritory belongs to the Government of the United States as an incident of its 
sovereignty; and every sailor that could hand, reef or steer would know 
what flag to put up on a discovered country, without consulting any con- 
stitutional lawyers. It would be the national flag. 

My friend from Kentucky knows that. He believes it. We acquire 
territory in consequence of our national sovereignly. There is no express 
power in the Constitution for it. It is an incident to sovereignty, an inci- 
dent to the war and treaty-making powers. We own the territory. The. 
States have no more to do with it than the Emperor of France — not a bit 
more; and this Government has nothing to do with their local affairs, ex- 
cept to protect them. That we are bound to do. We have given them 
guarantees to take care of them, to save them from themselves, if they 
have disturbances among themselves, aud call upon us; and we ought to 
do it. I am ready to do it if there is any disturbance. There is no man 
here but is willing to prevent any invasion of auy State for the purposes 
of injury and annoyance, and to punish those engaged in it. 

It has been charged that the Republican party were not willing to do 
this. Everything that has been doue for the last twenty years is charged 
to the Republican party, which in our State did not exist until four years 
ago last May. That was the first meeting they ever held there under their 
organization — the first time they ever got together. When were the per- 
sonal liberty bills, which are said to be an infraction of this treaty, passed? 
Massachusetts is arraigned here every other day for having passed personal 
liberty bills infracting the Constitution. Why, sir, if they are unconsti- 
tutional, they are utterly void. Everybody knows that. But who passed 
them ? The first personal liberty bill that has been bandied about here all 
over the Senate, was passed when both Houses of Massachusetts Legisla- 
ture were Democratic, with a Democratic Governor approving of it; and 
the negro equality law passed the same month. This charge of negro 
equality came from the fact that Massachusetts that year repealed the 
law which forbade the intermarriage of different races. That was done by 
the Democrats, and the next year the Democratic Governor, who approved 
those acts, beat " Honest John Davis." I went there and made speeches to 
try to elect John Davis ; but he was beaten. Our candidate was not ele •ted 
by the people ; nor was the other man in 1842, but he was elected by the Le- 
gislature, aud next year he beat us one vote. The third year we had a na- 
tional contest, and we beat them in Massachusetts ; but we were beaten our- 
selves in the country in 1844; and that same Governor, who signed this 
personal liberty bill and the negro equality bill, was sent into the Senate for 
the best office in New England, nominated by Mr. Polk, and every Demo- 
cratic Senator voted for him who knew, or might have known these facts. 
If they did, they would not care a fig about it, if he was on their side, but 
they would say : " this man probably had to get in by promising the Abo- 
litionists to do something if he got their votes ;" aud that is the way he 
did get in. Their idea is, "it will do very well if our folks do it; only let 
it work for the benefit of the Democratic party, and you may pass personal 
liberty bills or negro equality bills to your heart's content." But now 
they get up here and lay these bills to the Republican party, when the first 



13 

Republican Governor elected in Massachusetts brought to the notice of the 
Legislature the very provisions in that bill which were wrong, and that 
Legislature altered them, although they had been on the statute-book 
twelve years with all sorts of Governors, 'and nobody ever thought of them 
until Governor Banks called attention to them. And yet these are the 
grave charges thrown up here against the Republican party, and made the 
ision for breaking up this Government — such things as these! 
I do not care what kind of laws they pass in Georgia or South Carolina 
ing themselves ; only I do not like to see those laws imprisoning our 
suse they are poor and good fellows. South Carolina made a law 
of that kind ; but when she wanted to get'trade with England, she repealed 
it in reference to foreign countries, but kept it on in reference to her own 
brothers. That is the way they treat us ; but we are not going to fight about 
it, or quarrel over it. Our law in Rhode Island was passed six or eight years 
was a Republican party there — and there were more than 
six times as many Whiga who voti d against it as there were Democrats. 
'i'v. o of the leading Whig members made speeches against it ; but they were 
1 i. Afterwards, one of those men who opposed it came to be chief 

our - ite. Be was on the committee to revise the statutes — to 
be pared the act down, so that it was inoffensive; and 
1 that, if it were not for making a noise, he would strike it out alto- 
. When the virus, that is, every part of it that even savored of un- 
, was taken out, the Republican Legislature voted for it 
We do not want any unconstitutional laws in Rhode Isl- 
and, " jachusetts. I know they have been pretty high 
strung 1 knew them. I never did like them 
They banished our ancestors, hung the Quakers, and 
killed folks for being witches. (Laughter.) I do not believe in that dpc- 
: but still, Massachusetts is a pretty considerable State. She was 
ht so in the time of the Revolution; and I made up my mind, on 
accoutil of whal she did then, oevei to harbor any hard feeling toward her 
be had done bi fore, although she had 'lone many bad things. I 
do not mean to have any hard feelings toward any State, or the people of 
any State, bul ! cannoM go quite as far as the Senator from New York; 
for I think the millenium has not come, though I have full faith that it 
will. 1 do n .t know of a man in the country who could say as much as 
I with as much propriety. It is something like a pendulum — the 
further it swings one way, of its own momentum, it will swing just so much 
further tie' other way. I light up and down, as well as 
1 can. I d.» not want to be so straight that I must lean backward, al- 
though 1 am bent a little bj age; and therefore I do not mean to go very 
in my moorings. I have always held to these opinions, and do not 
1 ige tie in if I can help it. There may be circumstances 
which will obli_e me to do so. 

Bul ! regretted, more than anything else in this debate, to see a sort of 

dispo! v srything upon this Republican party, as if they made 

'I'll.' Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) says: "I told you so 

rs ago." I do not know but he did. There is a great 

deal of logic in facts, and we have been "told so" until we have carried 

irly all the free States. A great deal of this result came from its 

hat we meant to ruin the. country. I have said for the" last 

three years to my friends of the South, whom I have met at the Springs, 

that I believed they had got to this- pass, that nothiug would convince them 



14: 

that we were not a pack of pickpockets and thieves, but for us to get power, 
and then their stump-orators would cease to be liars ; because we should 
show them we had no intention of hurting them, and nothing else would 
prove it but our acts. I consider it providential that we have got power 
so that these men, before we all die out — old fogies as they call us — may 
see that this Government can be administered by a Republican President 
to the benefit of all his fellow-citizens in harmony and peace. 

Now, I make what are called stump speeches in my State and others; 
but I never made a speech that I would not utter in the presence of every 
candidate before the people; never. I was told that up in Harrisburg, by 
a former distinguished Seuator from Virginia, Watkius Leigh. He said 
we must make stump speeches; and as we did not know, he told us how. 
He said that we must not say anything on the stump that we would not 
say before a court of justice under oath. That was his rule, and I have 
observed it ever since. J said on the stump that I knew all the candidates 
before the country ; and I believed they were all eminently able to adminis- 
ter the Government. I would not say it now, because I have seen some 
things which make it a little doubtful. I think some of them are getting 
to be sectional. But I said it then, and believed it ; and I should not be a 
great ways off now if I were to say it. I think they are all good men 
now; but I think they have got excited, and are a little disposed to give 
up the doctrines that they maintained then. If they think they were 
wrong, I commend them for giving them up. 

• I do not think there is a doctrine in our platform that is subject to any 
just criticism, not one. Now, why should we give it up? It says that 
we mean to protect the States in their rights, and especially the right to 
regulate their own institutions in their own way. We polled nearly two 
million of votes, and these voters stand pledged to that doctrine. The 
Senator from Illinois received twelve or thirteen hundred thousand. Cer- 
tainly they stand pledged to it, and against this doctrine of interfering for 
the purpose of protecting slave property in the Territories. There are 
three million three hundred thousand voters opposed to any such inter- 
ference. They are all against it. I consider Mr.J3ell's vote just as much 
on the Republican side as I do Mr. Lincoln's. I count anybody who voted 
against the other candidate. I wanted our voters, where they could not 
help our candidate, but could help Bell, to vote for him. That was 
my feeling. I think him an honorable, high-minded, and good man ; and 
so I may say of the other candidate ; but I do not believe he could have 
got three hundred thousand votes in this country upou the secession doc- 
trine. Out of four million six hundred thousand votes, he could not have 
got three hundred thousand in the country upon this secession platform, 
in my deliberate judgment. He did not get more than one-sixth of the 
votes as it was. All the rest of the candidates were diametricaJly opposed 
to this doctrine. Those six hundred thousand now come here and demand 
that all the others shall throw up their platform, and break the Constitution, 
in order to appease them. 

That is just the case, as I see it. That is the logic of these facts ; and I 
cannot make anything else out of them. I ask the Senator from Ken- 
tucky, if that is fair ? He would not do it. He and I will do anything 
that is right ; but there is no propriety in denouncing great parties that 
have polled their million votes and more. Men have principles, feelings, 
love of country, and they will not be outraged by the surrender of their 



15 

doctrines. "We cannot make our people do it. They would be mortified 
and chagrined at a surrender of principle. 

I should like to make a congressional declaration, if it is needed — and 
such declarations go a great way — and let every man put his name on the 
call of the yeas and nays in favor of it, assuring the disquieted people of 
this country that they are safe in our hands; that we mean to protect them 
in their rights; that we mean to do everything that brothers ought to do 
to brothers. I will vote for such a declaration. I will do anything that I 
can to appease these feelings that so agitate the country, and even agree 
to alter the Constitution to do it, if you do not put so many things in it. 
But I would not undertake now to read these resolutions through, and find 
out exactly their positions in a fortnight. I want to think of a thing as 
much as a week after I have read it, to see how it is coming out, before I 
am willing to speak on it. The time has been when I could get up here 
at will and speak better, without knowing much about the subject ; give 
free vent to my feelings, and go it at large. (Laughter.) But I am old 
rh to know it is the easiest thing in the world to be mistaken. I would 
now rather look it over awhile. I hope I have some reputation for speak- 
ing pretty nearly what I think, after I do look it over; and I do not want 
to lose it. 

I have been told that there were propositions here that would satisfy 

[ cannot help having a little more regard 
for them. 1 do DOl wai * Georgia to leave us. I do not want South Car- 
olina to leave us. As to one or two of the "boughten" States, I do not 
believe we shall mis.^ them much, anyhow. They cost us ten times as 
much as they are worth, and if they went to-morrow, it would not worry 
- much as it would to lose one of the old thirteen, in which I have 
lived. I have lived under every President that ever was elected in this 

couutry. They were pretty g I men. I like the old thirteen. I do not 

want G or South Carolina to go out. I remember, when I talked 

about their banks in South Carolina, they complimented me very much; 
and 1 . ■ i y day thanking me for defending them against 

one of their Senators, who never meant to say anything to injure them ; 
but they took i i that he did. I wish I could talk to them about 

going out of this Union. I would beg of them, plead with them, and im- 
plore them not to go. I would assure them that they should have always 
a coin!'..: . : in tiiis Union — better than they can get out of it. 

A.a I bave said, 1 I al reasons for loving Georgia, and 

would stav in the Union. Rhode Island has great public ones 

, and d siring it. has the ashes of one of the noblest 

of our revolutionary worthies; one whom the fathers regarded as second 

only to him " who was peerless among men." That dust must not go out 

ofthisUni m. [f Georgia does, we must take it to Rhode Island, his native 

land, and lay it with his kindred, where, when the last " morning drum 

' shall summon his spirit to reanimate that dust, he may rise with the 

sam - flag waving over him which was borne by grateful and gallant 

when they laid him to rest. It then was, is now, and, I trust, 

all be the ll iff of the Union. 



rrinted by Lemuel Towers, at §1 00 per hundred copies. 



*%. 



\ 



•>' 



<0> 






\,£ :^M/k^ **a+ 



«y 












^ oV -'Sew: *°* 



^ _** 




r- ^ >* ^w, 



UfRT 

BOOKBINCXNC" 



